Unsafe, unsound and unattainable

Page Tools

NOW that the world has generally accepted the overwhelming
evidence for climate change, a number of the usual and unusual
suspects are proposing we develop safe nuclear power as a safe
option and as a fallback if oil runs out soon. The nuclear industry
has found some surprising friends, including James Lovelock,
developer of the Gaia hypothesis, who hopes that nuclear energy
will become a bridge to cleaner, safer technologies.

Debate about the morality of nuclear power has become intense.
However, it's purely academic. There's no point in arguing about
whether nuclear power should be used to replace fossil fuel. The
truth is it can't  it won't do the job, and there isn't
enough uranium.

Let's examine a few facts.

A shift to nuclear power  even if it were possible 
would have no effect on the bulk of the greenhouse gases emitted
because most of these gases come from outside the electrical power
industry. For example, the 15 countries of the European Union would
still be pouring more than 3 million tonnes of greenhouse gases
into the air each year  close to 80 per cent of their present
emissions. California's trucks and cars emit more than 3½
times as much greenhouse gas as its electrical plants, and the
humming of all-electric cars is still music of the future. Assuming
that no one is suggesting developing car-sized nuclear reactors,
emission levels will go on rising.

But what about the fossil fuel use nuclear power can replace?
Again, there's a lot of illusion here. The construction of a
nuclear station, and the mining and processing of the fuel to
supply it, requires significant energy and the associated
emissions. A detailed study by van Leeuwin and Smith (cited in
Arena Journal No.23) found that for poor grades of ore, more energy
is needed to process the uranium than the uranium delivers. If you
decide to build a nuclear power station, be prepared to wait 10
years. This, plus the years of operation before energy output
exceeds the energy taken to build it, means that shifting to
nuclear would initially worsen fossil fuel emissions.

Uranium is subject to the same laws of diminishing returns as
any other commodity that has to be dug up. The uranium being mined
now is generally from very rich ores and these stocks would replace
only about nine years of global electricity production. With poorer
ore grades, extraction would take half to all of the energy the
uranium could yield.

These findings emerge from careful studies. Governments know
that nuclear power is no magic bullet for the problem of greenhouse
gas emissions. So why have government leaders in the US, Britain,
France and China advocated nuclear power  sometimes quite
forcefully? Because it is an industry essential to sustainability
 of the military rather than the environmental kind.
Governments with a nuclear arsenal need the services of a nuclear
industry. Quite aside from the expanded risks of a nuclear accident
 especially in poorly regulated areas such as the developing
world or the US  there would be the increased risk of
plutonium theft, and the more rigorous security apparatus
governments would need to create to counter it. It should be
obvious that if you're worried about "dirty bomb" terrorism, you
shouldn't scatter nuclear plants around as if they were coffee shop
chains.

But the greatest danger in the "nuclear solution" lies in the
power it has to divert attention and investment funds from the
policies that would deal with climate change. Policies to stop
wasting energy and to develop non-polluting energy sources such as
solar and wind power.

It is significant that in Canada's Action Plan 2000, for its
manufacturing, electricity generation, transport, oil and gas, and
building industries, the recurring theme is about improving energy
efficiency. In California, authorities are taking steps to ensure
cars perform better and that solar panels on houses are
subsidised.

Such policies can stem the useless flow of wasted energy from
polluting sources, which serves no useful purpose but threatens the
only planet we have. If we are not hypnotised by the illusory
glitter of some sweeping technological fix, we can make our
governments adopt them.

Alan Roberts taught physics and environmental science at Monash
University. His sources are cited in full in a longer article in
Arena Journal No.23.